RESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: Indirect methods for reference interval (RI) establishment apply statistical techniques to generate RIs for test result interpretation using stored laboratory data. They present unique advantages relative to traditional direct approaches such as fewer resource requirements; however, there is debate regarding their performance. Herein, we aimed to compare indirect and direct approaches for RI establishment by harnessing data from the Isfahan Cohort Study (ICS). This cohort includes both healthy individuals and those with a history of disease, enabling a direct comparison. METHODS: Participants were recruited as part of ICS, including 6504 adults aged 34 years and older. Sociodemographic characteristics, anthropometry, blood pressure, various biochemical indices, and hematology parameters were collected. The refineR method was used to establish indirect RIs (before applying exclusion criteria). Direct RIs were calculated using nonparametric methods per CLSI EP28-A3 guidelines (after applying exclusion criteria). Bias ratios were calculated for each parameter to assess significant differences in estimations. RESULTS: Direct and indirect RI estimations for most hematological and biochemical parameters were comparable. Statistically significant bias ratios between methods were observed for the upper limits of total cholesterol, triglycerides, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), hemoglobin (female), and platelet count as well as the lower limits of mean corpuscular hemoglobin (female), mean corpuscular volume, hemoglobin, and hematocrit (female). CONCLUSION: Data presented indicate RIs derived from direct and indirect approaches are similar, but not identical. Further work should focus on the clinical significance of such differences as well as the investigation of necessary data-cleaning criteria before indirect method application.
